2019 (11) TMI 1773 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of Misc. Application on the ground of not amending the cause title without considering the fact of service of notice and merits - appeal were taken up for hearing only after almost fourteen years of filing of appeals - revoking of ex-parte final order by invoking the provisions of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules? - sufficient opportunity provided to the Appellants or not - use of Brand Name - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - In para 2 of the order dated 26.04.2017, it is stated that none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Since the matter was old one, CESTAT had taken it for final decision on merits. While disposing the Misc. Application, the CESTAT has noted the reason for non appearance of the appellants as change of address and not accepted the same on the ground that appellant had not informed to the Registry and accordingly dismissed the application. It is also not disputed that the appeal was filed in the year 2003, but it came up for hearing for the first time in 2017. The appeal had remained on the file of CESTAT for 14 years and disposed of at the first hearing itself. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled for a hearing on merits. Further reckoned from the date of disposal of the Misc. Application, this appeal is in time. The delay in filing this appeal condoned and the appeal is allowed - matter is remanded to CESTAT for reconsideration on merits.

Summary

Issues:
- Late filing of appeal
- Rejection of Misc. Application by Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal
- Central excise duty demand
- Consideration of substantial questions of law
- Condonation of delay
- Entitlement for a hearing on merits

Late Filing of Appeal:
The appeal in question was filed belatedly after 668 days, seeking to set aside the impugned ex-parte Final Order and central excise duty demand. The appellants raised substantial questions of law regarding the correctness and legality of the Tribunal's orders, which were disposed of after a significant delay from the filing date.

Rejection of Misc. Application by Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal:
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Misc. Application by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal on various grounds, including the failure to amend the cause title, lack of consideration of notice service, and merits of the case. They argued that the Tribunal did not properly consider the case laws cited by them and failed to recall the ex-parte final order as per Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules.

Central Excise Duty Demand:
The appellants sought to set aside the central excise duty demand confirmed by the Tribunal, along with interest and penalty. They contended that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and legally unsustainable, emphasizing the need for a proper review of the case documents and an opportunity for a fair hearing.

Consideration of Substantial Questions of Law:
The substantial questions of law raised by the appellants focused on various aspects of the Tribunal's orders, including the rejection of the Misc. Application, the delay in hearing the appeal, the ownership of brand names, and the imposition of penalties without proper findings. These questions highlighted the legal issues and discrepancies in the Tribunal's decisions.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellants applied for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing the prolonged duration from the initial filing in 2003 to the first hearing in 2017. The High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.

Entitlement for a Hearing on Merits:
The High Court acknowledged the long delay in the appeal process and deemed the appellants entitled to a hearing on merits. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Tribunal without the need to address the previously raised questions of law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on addressing the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the rejection of the Misc. Application by the Tribunal, the central excise duty demand, the consideration of substantial questions of law, the condonation of delay, and the entitlement for a hearing on merits, ultimately remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for further review.